Hi XXXXX,
Thank you for your email. As I had promised you a couple of weeks ago that I would be replying to your email, here it is.
I am down with Covid and this gives me time to write to you.
So here are my thoughts. I will be disclosing them to other relevant people after scrubbing out your identity so as to not violate your privacy. You are free to share this email with whoever you wish to or even go public with it without hiding my identity.
- Activism and a Liberal Arts University are not joined at the hip. Ashoka is a Liberal Arts and Sciences University. Whether to be activists or not is a conscious choice people make. In the past I have questioned the activism at Ashoka—each time, I have been pounced upon by the activists and their supporters, both within and outside Ashoka: students, faculty, activists, etc., saying that ‘if you are running a liberal arts university, then activism goes with the territory’, that ‘I am an arrogant owner’, that ‘dirty filthy capitalists don’t understand how a university runs’ (they somehow forget that the same capitalists are paying their salaries). It seems that a whole bunch of people would have their raison d’etre under question if activism was questioned. It is as if they have found a safe haven at Ashoka and have captured the institution and anyone who questions them must be attacked. I have always found this position of theirs to be spurious. I went to a liberal arts and sciences college and there was little or no activism and we got along just fine. In fact, some of us excelled.
So I asked Google a question – “Are all liberal arts universities activist in nature?”
The Google AI response at the top of the results said this. I agree with it.
No, it’s not accurate to say that all liberal arts universities are inherently activist. While some liberal arts institutions may have a history of activism or a strong emphasis on civic engagement, this is not a defining characteristic of all liberal arts schools. Liberal arts education focuses on a holistic approach to learning, emphasizing critical thinking, communication, and a broad understanding of various subjects.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
· Liberal arts education:
This type of education aims to develop well-rounded individuals with a strong ability to think critically, communicate effectively, and solve problems. It emphasizes a broad understanding of different fields, rather than specialized vocational training.
· Civic engagement and activism:
Many liberal arts universities do encourage students to engage in civic activities, participate in community initiatives, and develop a sense of social responsibility. However, this isn’t a universal requirement or characteristic of all liberal arts institutions.
· Diversity of approaches:
Some liberal arts schools may have a strong tradition of activism and social justice, while others may focus more on academic rigor and intellectual curiosity. There’s a wide range of approaches and priorities within the liberal arts landscape.
· Not all liberal arts institutions are activist:
Some liberal arts colleges may prioritize more traditional academic pursuits and research, with less emphasis on activism or direct social engagement.
· Defining characteristic:
The defining characteristic of liberal arts education is the holistic approach to learning and the development of critical thinking skills, not necessarily a commitment to activism.
The fundamental point I am making is that activism at Ashoka is a choice and it does not go with the territory. You can be a great liberal arts university and not be activist. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.
- It is important to understand what is and what is not academic scholarship. Teaching a course at Ashoka is academic scholarship. Research published in a peer-reviewed academic journal is academic scholarship. Presenting a research paper at an academic conference where other academics are in attendance is academic scholarship. Research work in the field that goes on to inform a paper you publish is academic scholarship. An academic book based on your research is academic scholarship. An oped published by an academic in a mainstream newspaper is journalism and not academic scholarship. A political opinion expressed on Facebook or Twitter (X) or Instagram is not academic scholarship. Consequently, any public outcry about a political opinion an academic may express on social media is not an attack on academic freedom, even if the person expressing that opinion has a day job as an academic. If a regulator or the government or law enforcement goes after you for a social media post, it is not an infringement of academic freedom. It might be an infringement of freedom of speech; however, there are provisions within the Constitution and the law where you can find protection. You are a grown-up adult. You are responsible for your actions and any consequences thereof. Ashoka is not obliged to support you for political opinions you express in your personal capacity. You did not seek Ashoka’s consent before posting on social media, you cannot now present Ashoka with a fait accompli and expect support. Cruel as it may sound, you make your choices—and you live with the outcome.
- As an institution, Ashoka cannot take an activist position. Ashoka is a university under the Haryana Private Universities Act. It is governed by the law of the land — both Haryana laws and central government laws. It is answerable to regulators and to government authorities. It is not a political party or movement — it is an educational institution. It cannot take an activist position, and if any of its office-bearers wish to take an activist position personally, they may resign their offices before doing so. As individual faculty members, they are free to take whatever position they wish. In this respect, there is a policy issue I would like the Governing Body to take up: Is a full-time academic position at Ashoka truly full-time? Can a full-time academic also pursue a political career? In the private sector, we generally stay away from what are termed as “Politically Exposed Persons.” Should Ashoka have such a policy?
- There are ways that an institution deals with a regulator and there are ways it should not deal with a regulator. I work at Info Edge. We are a listed company that employs over six thousand people. We have invested in over 130 startups. Two of our well-known investee companies are Zomato and PolicyBazaar. Both these companies are listed. We, therefore, get to interface with a number of regulators — SEBI, RBI, IRDA, FSSAI, RERA (we also own and run the real estate portal 99acres) and others. We interface with NSE and BSE. Regulators are statutory bodies. They have powers. They have a mandate. They have authority. They take their roles seriously. And they expect those they are regulating to take them seriously and rightly so. As a well-governed company, Info Edge respects all regulators it interfaces with and takes their advice and concerns seriously. If we have a point of view, which is at divergence with that of any regulator on any matter that concerns us, we make a representation to the concerned regulator. Such representations are made in polite terms, through formal channels and in appropriate and respectful language and usually confidentially and behind closed doors. We do not attack the regulator on social media. But people who have never built or headed institutions may not understand this — neither do I expect them to. Ashoka will deal with the government and the regulators in a respectful, mature and responsible manner and often not in public.
- There are four thousand people in the Ashoka community. If you add alumni, the community goes up by a few thousand more. Ashoka cannot be either responsible or accountable or identified with every social media post of every person. And if someone comes under attack for a social media post, Ashoka is not obliged to either take responsibility for or defend that post or that person. Poster beware.
- Let us say that the students and faculty of Ashoka insist that Ashoka as an institution support every utterance and every action of each of its activist faculty and students. And let us say at Ashoka, the Governing Body and the administration of Ashoka decide to do that. What do you think the outcome will be? First, the founders will walk away. That will mean funding will walk out of the door. And let us say Ashoka is then managed by activist alumni, faculty, the student government, the faculty association, the editorial board of Edict (current and past), etc. And let us say that you are the chair of the board. You will need to immediately balance the books. I don’t know who will donate money — if you can get donors, great; if not, you will need to do all or some of the following: raise the fees, cancel the scholarships, freeze head count and salaries (perhaps even reduce salaries), cancel capex and expansion plans, increase the class size, increase the teaching load on the faculty, de-prioritise research, allow in day scholars, shut some departments, not offer any elective courses that have fewer than (say) a hundred registrations, cut down the size of the administration, reduce placement support, reduce the admissions team, and simplify the admissions process (have a simple process and depend only on the CUET, for instance). All around cost cuts, revenue maximisation and getting the faculty to teach more in order to survive financially. It will be a very different Ashoka from what we had envisioned and which you experienced but it will survive. Why don’t you and other alumni offer to step in and take over? Pramath, Ashish, and I have seriously discussed the option of walking away. Ashoka is too much of a headache. Is it worth the effort? And you may not believe this, but money, even in this day and age, does not grow on trees but it still makes the world go around. Every rupee has to be sweated for. Try raising money for Ashoka. As Pramath put it to me the other day, “Aatey daal ka bhaav pata chal jayega.”
- Where does this leave freedom of speech or the lack of it, which is what a number of people seem to be exercised by? In my view, freedom of speech is a constitutional right. Use of good judgement and responsible conduct is an expectation and a hope (sometimes forlorn) but not an obligation. Appropriate timing of what to say, where, when and to whom and how is a sign of intelligence (beyond academic scholarship). If you end up offending a whole bunch of people, even though you were not technically incorrect in what you said, then an expression of regret and an apology is a sign of good grace and decency. Hijacking an institutional platform to make it subordinate to your political agenda is an act of institutional capture and selfishness. Expecting the institution to then support you is an act of entitlement and arrogance. I could go on.
I shall leave you with these random thoughts.
Regards
Sanjeev
Editor’s Note: This letter was sent out to an internal mailing list and ThePrint has sourced it from there.
Sanjeev Bikhchandani is an entrepreneur and investor. He tweets @sbikh.
THe leftist wants to make Ashoka University a cesspool ike they made of JNU, now that the JNU cespool is almost cleaned they are looking for another place. For them attacking hinduism under a facade of secularism is what lthse universities are for.
I studied under Bikhchandani. He was a well-liked guy. but was not rich. Money has ruined him, just like it ruins everyone. He reminds me of industrialists who supported the holocaust and were too afraid. If you can’t support your own faculty, your own employees, who will you stand for? Who all are dispensable? The family, the country. If he can’t say something good, maybe he should say nothing at all.
Salute to Mr. Bikhchandani.
It takes courage to speak the truth. To have the guts to call out a spade for what it actually is.
An academic is always free to engage in activism. But that activism is his/her personal thing. The institution is not associated with it. People of various ideologies and inclinations are part of an university. The wide variety of ideas and opinions invariably make their way to the classrooms and thereby enrich the university and encourag students to think critically. All of that is good and great.
But when an academic or a student engages in activism, it’s his/her personal choice. It’s a private endeavour of that person. Of course, one is free to be an activist in a democratic country. But the institution is not involved in this activism in any manner.
What we post on our individual Facebook or Instagram or X (Twitter) account reflects our own opinion and thoughts. It does not reflect the institution’s opinion or thoughts.
Hence, to drag the institution into a controversy and expect it to get into fights with the law enforcement agencies on our behalf does reek of entitled behaviour.
Mr. Bikhchandani has quite beautifully differentiated between academic endeavours of a scholar and his/her activism. The university is always duty bound to defend genuinely academic activity that it’s teachers and students engage in. That may include research papers on “controversial” topics, inviting “controversial” scholars on campus for talks, etc. The university management is responsible to ensure that such activities can take place without any issues.
But to put out ridiculous posts from personal accounts on social media platforms and then expect the university to jump in and fight on our behalf is just not acceptable.
Prof. Mahmudabad has acted grossly entitled in this instance. All those who castigated the Ashoka founders for not standing up for Prof. Mahmudabad have acted frivolous too.
Kudos to Mr. Bikhchandani, Pramath and Ashish for taking a firm stance on this issue. The Ashoka university administration must warn Prof. Mahmudabad that such entitled behaviour will not be tolerated going ahead and he must own up to his responsibilities as an individual.
Also, it would be in the best interests of everyone concerned if the university were to put out a circular on this and clearly inform the “activist” academics in it’s ranks (Ashoka has too many of that variety) that they must not associate the university with their personal thoughts, opinions or activism. Any attempt to get the university into conflict with law enforcement agencies, in order to further their own personal activist “causes”, will result in swift disciplinary action against the concerned “activist” academic.
In light of all of this we keep forgetting smthing very simple, the context and the atmosphere in which the professor made the post. I am not a supporter of war in any way, but the fact that pro peace gang is quick to talk about peace , especially when India retaliates doesn’t show an impetus for peace but a desire for impotence and weakness. Let’s also not forget how he changed the discussion from the war to Right wing attitude towards sophia qureshi, (because why?) and then highlighted how right wing needs to stand up with those tht get lynched based on religion. Fair. But what was the point of bringing it here? One could also argue why the asoka university professor didn’t mention , that the other side needs to talk abt peace wen riots in murshidabad or Bangladesh attack the minorities of those areas aka non muslims. In either case both of these discussions are relevant in country’s internal matters and discussions on religious freedom, i cannot understand why the professor brought it in context of operation sindoor. My best bet is, simply his desire to paint the operation as a shadow of Hindutva , which supposedly attacks minorities in India, to paint the operation itself as an attack on the “innocent” people of pakistan. That is to make the perpetrators of terror attacks on India as the “victims”. It’s pretty clear where his motivations lied. One hardly feels the desire to stand with the professor with such ideology.
The letter from Ashoka University founder Mr. Sanjeev Bikhchandani, in response to concerns about the university’s silence over Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s arrest, reveals something deeper than just institutional positioning—it exposes the fault lines of private higher education in India.
Instead of standing with a faculty member who voiced truth and constitutional values, the university seems to distance itself under the pretext of “academic neutrality” and “liberal education not equating to activism.” This, to me, is a way of saying: we will not stand with those who challenge injustice or power, because institutional survival matters more than the values we claim to teach.
This is the inevitable outcome when education is privatized and left in the hands of those whose vision is shaped more by donor comfort and risk aversion than by ethical courage or democratic responsibility. In such spaces, critical inquiry is tolerated only within limits—never if it unsettles the status quo.
We must ask: What good is a liberal arts education if it produces silence in the face of repression?
When institutions sanitize politics, depoliticize dissent, and prioritize their brand over their backbone, they are not neutral—they are complicit.
Prof. Mahmudabad and others of his ilk are like parasites. They are always in search of wealthy patrons. Why? Because someone needs to fund their high flying lifestyles. And who better than a free market capitalist with deep pockets?
There’s just one catch though. Most of these “scholars” are from the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist school and therefore despise capitalists and capitalism. They spend their lives spreading misinformation and engaging in disinformation campaigns against the capitalistic world order. They rant and rail against the ‘gross injustices’ of capitalism.
All the while savouring the fruits of capitalism. They want the very best for themselves and their families. And Ashoka University provides just that and then some more – astronomical salaries and perks unheard of in Indian academia.
Ashoka University has become an infamous institution. Why? Because of Hinduphobic ‘scholars’ like Christophe Jaffrelot and Aparna Vaidik who have found refuge here. These bigoted individuals who have consistently peddled anti-Hindu propaganda and indoctrinated young impressionable minds have found a safe haven at Ashoka.
One can understand the predicament of the founders though. Their hard earned money is being wasted on such parasites.
People like “Dr.” S Sathananthan are the ones in charge of Ashoka University. Know-it-all types who have never ever created an institution.
People like Mr. Bikhchandani, Pramath and Ashish should actually walk out of Ashoka and leave it to the likes of Sathananthan and Mahmudabad. Let these idiots run the university on their own and let the world see how good they are at creating institutions of repute.
One cannot but feel deeply for the founders of Ashoka University. They wanted to create the Indian equivalent of MIT. Ended up creating another Jadavpur University.
The Left-liberal ecosystem is a vulture out to feed on anyone with deep pockets. They speak all kinds of mumbo-jumbo and critique capitalism all their life but their deep and abiding love for the trappings of capitalism belie their shrill voices. Deep down they just want to feast on other people’s hard earned money.
So tragic and disappointing.
The founders of Ashoka University, all billionaire capitalists, wanted to create an institution like MIT. The ambition was to facilitate top notch research and education in basic sciences and technology which could lead to Nobel Prizes, Fields Medals and Turing Awards.
The Left-liberal cabal got whiff of the plan and managed to convince the founders that the ideal way forward was a liberal arts and humanities university. As if JNU/Jamia/Aligarh was not enough, the Left-liberal ecosystem wanted another campus dedicated to their “cause”. Ashoka University, very unfortunately, became the hub of all sorts of woke ideas and idiocy. Led by the likes of Rudrangshu Mukherjee (ex-editor of The Telegraph) and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, it provided refuge to rabidly anti-Hindu “intellectuals” like Christophe Jaffrelot. Insulting Hinduism and demonising Hindus became the raison d’etre.
The founders, all well meaning individuals with great achievements to their names who genuinely wanted to contribute to India’s progress in science and technology, were fooled by the Left-liberal cabal into serving it’s own interests.
The salaries at Ashoka are unmatched in Indian academia. These Leftists, whose hatred for capitalism knows no bounds, enjoyed all the perks and benefits of capitalist largesse of the founders. All the while engaging in targeted disinformation campaigns against Hindus and Hinduism.
Mr. Bikhchandani and company has unwittingly created a monster.
Critical thinking devoid of it’s necessarily associated decisive action is impotent sabre rattling much encouraged by the status quo..
The status quo often dodges making informed responses by dismissing critiques on the spurious grounds of impoliteness and disrespect.
Politeness and respect disempower the opposition. They cannot challenge power.
Throughout history change has been brought about by impatient, abrasive and even revolutionary/violent speech and actions. Think of Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc. and the Feminist struggles and battles against caste oppression, all of which were the results of the status quo cheerfully abandoning respect, politeness and fair play.
Notice how the founder in his reply throws down the gauntlet – challenging critics to raise funds for Ashoka university.
Is that different from President Trump threatening to cut off and cutting off funds for Harvard and other universities for pro-Palestine activism?
Worse still, the founder makes the irresponsible distinction between “academic” and “journalistic” writings. What matters is the content of the intervention not the platform on which it appears. To dismiss an argument because it appears in a “non-academic” source is pseudo intellectual arrogance at its worst.
It follows that the founder’s assertion the Ashoka university is not obliged to defend its members for their interventions in socially important issues outside the contrived and limited academic circle smacks of cowardice
In the social sciences critical analyses are rarely to be found in hide bound academic tomes. Instead they grow out of pamphlets, issue-based publications by activists and their activism and personal communications which are thereafter retailed by passive academics.
Lastly, the admission of googling to determine what constitutes academic interventions is a source of mirth.